[GCC-XML]Wrong output in version 0.4.1?
brad.king at kitware.com
Fri Feb 21 07:52:38 EST 2003
> <Field id="_821" name="_Gr" access="private" type="_501" context="_0"
> <Field id="_822" name="_Dp" access="private" type="_827" context="_0"
> <Field id="_823" name="_Ks" access="private" type="_827" context="_0"
> [snipped some more lines similar]
> The problem is the context: there's no context with the id "_0" in the
> rest of the file. Is this a bug?
I'm looking into this. It is likely that it has to do with the bugfix
that was done in the 0.4.1 release. The "fix" might have revealed another
bug. Thanks for reporting this.
> I have another question: how can I simulate the Intel C++ compiler? The
> homepage states that gccxml has support for it, and the name of the
> compiler must be passed to the --gccxml-compiler flag. I tried icl,
> intel, intelc++ and others without success. What's the correct name?
The documentation says that it supports the Intel PLUGIN to MSVC 6, which
uses the Visual Studio standard library. Therefore, just use msvc6 as the
compiler name, and the produced code will reflect what is seen by the
plugin compiler. Support for intel's standalone compiler is not currently
provided, but it probably added relatively easily. Contact me off the
list if you are interested in persuing this.
> Another question: I would like to make gccxml use STLport instead of the
> default visual studio standard libraries. I pass the path to stlport
> with the -I flag, but gccxml apparently includes the vc libraries first
> by default. How can I change this behaviour?
That is an oversight in the implementation that no one has noticed until
now. The compiler simulation flags are added first, and then the user
flags. It should be the other way around. I've fixed this in the CVS
head of the GCC-XML front-end. If you check it out from CVS (insturctions
on web page), you can build it and still use the gccxml_cc1plus exectuable
More information about the gccxml